4 ms·

It's despicable, isn't it? Like, there are climate change deniers that are overly-skeptical or gullible and buy into the mountains of misinformation. And then t

It's despicable, isn't it? Like, there are climate change deniers that are overly-skeptical or gullible and buy into the mountains of misinformation. And then there are those like Steve Goddard who sit down every day and work their asses off creating said misinformation (check his twitter). Actively manipulating and cherrypicking data to deceive for personal gain (whether it be paychecks, political favor, whatever). And they're winning, considering only half of Republicans believe climate change is even happening, let alone that it's manmade. This was probably the stupidest possible problem for the American political machine to make a wedge issue.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> This was probably the stupidest possible problem for the American political machine to make a wedge issue Read it as an issue that unites middle American industrialists and rural anti-elitists and the politics make sense.
briandear 8y ago
A fair question: has the climate alarmist side not cherry picked or even used fraudulent data to suit their cause as well? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-e... Our skepticism isn’t about the climate changing, (remember when it was called global warming?) it’s a skepticism about the causes and the degree to which human influence plays a significant role. Any time there is any skepticism at all, we get labeled “deniers” or otherwise ostracized. That’s pretty unique in science, usually skepticism is considered a healthy part of the scientific process — unless it’s concerning a topic that has substantial political implications. Given that a large segment of the climate change advocacy also “coincidentally” support far left economic policies as a “remedy,” how can it be a surprise that people like me have a deep skepticism of the whole human-caused global warming debate. Another time we had “settled science” with so much politicization was when Eugenics was being advocated. http://www.michaelcrichton.com/why-politicized-science-is-dangerous/ http://www.michaelcrichton.com/why-politicized-science-is-da... I’ll predict the inevitable downvotes, which really only proves the point: debating human causes of climate change is akin to debating the existence of Jesus Christ.
- oliveshell 8y ago
  This whole thing makes me sad. There shouldn’t be any political overtones at all. The science behind climate change is relatively straightforward (greenhouse effect is real, humans dump mountains of CO2 into the atmosphere constantly) and the whole thing just makes sense to reasonable, intelligent people once they have the knowledge to consider it thoughtfully. That being said, there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it at this point. Unless we find a way to stop crisscrossing the oceans in quarter-mile-long, bunker-sludge-burning cargo ships and flying jets all over the place.
- glhaynes 8y ago
  "(remember when it was called global warming?)" I keep seeing this phrase lately. What does it mean? [To clarify, I'm asking about why people keep saying "remember when it was called…" as though it proves some point about it. Global warming is still an accurate description of the predicted and confirmed phenomenon.]
  - orf 8y ago
    It's a common argument deniers make to try and spread FUD. > They used to call it global warming, then they rebranded it to (the more accurate) climate change because their narrative was coming apart/everything is fine/elitist climate scientists trying to get money. If they can't even get their story straight why should we believe them?? > This message was brought to you by the 'Sensible Patriotic Americans Against Climate Change Nonsense' (funded by Exxon).
    - glhaynes 8y ago
      Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to get at. Maybe it's just the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon but I feel like I'm seeing the exact phrase "remember when it was called global warming?" a lot lately and I'm having trouble accepting that we're all being subjected to this stupid ploy again. Obviously I shouldn't have such trouble at this point, but there you go.
    - martinpw 8y ago
educationdata 8y ago
Why this kind of bad attitude toward republicans? Is this really "the stupidest possible problem" in the American politics, really? How about the left-wing's deny of gender difference? If you want to compare the two, the climate change deniers vs. gender difference deniers. I would say the gender difference deniers are much much worse, because gender difference has both scientific evidence (supported by both statistics and scientific theory) and everyday experience evidence, while climate change only has scientific evidence - nobody has experienced temperature change from 1900 to 2018! Interestingly, all the responses I received so far claim gender difference denying is not that serious compared to climate change denying. Seems everybody agrees gender difference deniers are the stupidest.
- vkou 8y ago
  > How about the left-wing's deny of gender difference? Because of the impact of getting this wrong.
  - educationdata 8y ago
    Impact of getting it wrong and stupidity are two different dimensions. Non-serious mistake can be more stupid than serious mistake.
- Svip 8y ago
  Because climate change is the most serious problem facing humanity. It doesn't really matter what gender people are, if there is not a livable planet for us.
  - educationdata 8y ago
    Seriousness and stupidity are two different dimensions. Non-serious mistake can be more stupid than serious mistake.
- nemothekid 8y ago
  >nobody has experienced temperature change from 1990 to 2018! What? Was this post created by a human?
wolco 8y ago
This is a political issue now. Debates around gravity would be less polarizing. We even have a term for those who do not agree (climate change deniers) which has roots in the holocaust deniers label which is very negative. Somewhere along the way science stopped, funding increased to fund ever more scary climate models. The solutions given were more of a wealth spreading scheme where poorer countries like china responsible for more green houses gases than the eu were allowed to continue without penalty. Richer countries could buy credits somehow the money would reduce greenhouse gases somewhere poorer. If we stuck to science most would be on board. When Al Gore delivered the message the message changed. The medium is the message.
Covzire 8y ago
Want convince 99% of America that Climate Change needs immediate action? Address the following points (without vitriol, deception or animosity): I'm not saying all these are ironclad facts, but this is what you're up against: Alarmists have been wrong many times in the past. Cooling. Warming. 10 foot sea rise by 1980. No, 1990. No, 2000. No 2030, for sure this time. Alarmists have been caught manipulating data, for the express purpose of convincing people through deception, and the community was less than eager to own up to it. Alarmists cannot quantify how much of an impact man is having; attempts at measuring it lead to climate models, and climate models have only a slightly better track record than a bunch of stopped clocks at keeping time. Everyone knows that the earth has warmed and cooled since it existed. So everyone agrees that the world temperature changes constantly. But the alarmists can't quantify our impact with any accuracy, can't predict where it will go next with any certainty, but want everyone to drop everything to try to solve it. You see a problem that must be solved at all costs, they see a cult peddling politics and money in place of science, using clean water and air as a hook to reach the masses who all want those things too, but without wanting to join the cult.
- dagss 8y ago
  "Everyone knows that the earth has warmed and cooled since it existed" This is where things get wrong. Previously warming and cooling has happened over thousands of years. What we see now is something different. A couple hundred years is "instant" in this context. https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- bjourne 8y ago
  Sorry that I modded you down, but where is the cite for the claim 10 foot sea rise by XXXX year?
- _-david-_ 8y ago
  The other issue is because of these theories there is push for new regulations and (carbon) taxes. This is going to cause people to be skeptical of the information.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> This was probably the stupidest possible problem for the American political machine to make a wedge issue Read it as an issue that unites middle American industrialists and rural anti-elitists and the politics make sense.

briandear 8y ago

A fair question: has the climate alarmist side not cherry picked or even used fraudulent data to suit their cause as well? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-e... Our skepticism isn’t about the climate changing, (remember when it was called global warming?) it’s a skepticism about the causes and the degree to which human influence plays a significant role. Any time there is any skepticism at all, we get labeled “deniers” or otherwise ostracized. That’s pretty unique in science, usually skepticism is considered a healthy part of the scientific process — unless it’s concerning a topic that has substantial political implications. Given that a large segment of the climate change advocacy also “coincidentally” support far left economic policies as a “remedy,” how can it be a surprise that people like me have a deep skepticism of the whole human-caused global warming debate. Another time we had “settled science” with so much politicization was when Eugenics was being advocated. http://www.michaelcrichton.com/why-politicized-science-is-dangerous/ http://www.michaelcrichton.com/why-politicized-science-is-da... I’ll predict the inevitable downvotes, which really only proves the point: debating human causes of climate change is akin to debating the existence of Jesus Christ.

oliveshell 8y ago
This whole thing makes me sad. There shouldn’t be any political overtones at all. The science behind climate change is relatively straightforward (greenhouse effect is real, humans dump mountains of CO2 into the atmosphere constantly) and the whole thing just makes sense to reasonable, intelligent people once they have the knowledge to consider it thoughtfully. That being said, there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it at this point. Unless we find a way to stop crisscrossing the oceans in quarter-mile-long, bunker-sludge-burning cargo ships and flying jets all over the place.
glhaynes 8y ago
"(remember when it was called global warming?)" I keep seeing this phrase lately. What does it mean? [To clarify, I'm asking about why people keep saying "remember when it was called…" as though it proves some point about it. Global warming is still an accurate description of the predicted and confirmed phenomenon.]
- orf 8y ago
  It's a common argument deniers make to try and spread FUD. > They used to call it global warming, then they rebranded it to (the more accurate) climate change because their narrative was coming apart/everything is fine/elitist climate scientists trying to get money. If they can't even get their story straight why should we believe them?? > This message was brought to you by the 'Sensible Patriotic Americans Against Climate Change Nonsense' (funded by Exxon).
  - glhaynes 8y ago
    Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to get at. Maybe it's just the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon but I feel like I'm seeing the exact phrase "remember when it was called global warming?" a lot lately and I'm having trouble accepting that we're all being subjected to this stupid ploy again. Obviously I shouldn't have such trouble at this point, but there you go.
  - martinpw 8y ago

educationdata 8y ago

Why this kind of bad attitude toward republicans? Is this really "the stupidest possible problem" in the American politics, really? How about the left-wing's deny of gender difference? If you want to compare the two, the climate change deniers vs. gender difference deniers. I would say the gender difference deniers are much much worse, because gender difference has both scientific evidence (supported by both statistics and scientific theory) and everyday experience evidence, while climate change only has scientific evidence - nobody has experienced temperature change from 1900 to 2018! Interestingly, all the responses I received so far claim gender difference denying is not that serious compared to climate change denying. Seems everybody agrees gender difference deniers are the stupidest.

vkou 8y ago
> How about the left-wing's deny of gender difference? Because of the impact of getting this wrong.
- educationdata 8y ago
  Impact of getting it wrong and stupidity are two different dimensions. Non-serious mistake can be more stupid than serious mistake.
Svip 8y ago
Because climate change is the most serious problem facing humanity. It doesn't really matter what gender people are, if there is not a livable planet for us.
- educationdata 8y ago
  Seriousness and stupidity are two different dimensions. Non-serious mistake can be more stupid than serious mistake.
nemothekid 8y ago
>nobody has experienced temperature change from 1990 to 2018! What? Was this post created by a human?

wolco 8y ago

This is a political issue now. Debates around gravity would be less polarizing. We even have a term for those who do not agree (climate change deniers) which has roots in the holocaust deniers label which is very negative. Somewhere along the way science stopped, funding increased to fund ever more scary climate models. The solutions given were more of a wealth spreading scheme where poorer countries like china responsible for more green houses gases than the eu were allowed to continue without penalty. Richer countries could buy credits somehow the money would reduce greenhouse gases somewhere poorer. If we stuck to science most would be on board. When Al Gore delivered the message the message changed. The medium is the message.

Covzire 8y ago

Want convince 99% of America that Climate Change needs immediate action? Address the following points (without vitriol, deception or animosity): I'm not saying all these are ironclad facts, but this is what you're up against: Alarmists have been wrong many times in the past. Cooling. Warming. 10 foot sea rise by 1980. No, 1990. No, 2000. No 2030, for sure this time. Alarmists have been caught manipulating data, for the express purpose of convincing people through deception, and the community was less than eager to own up to it. Alarmists cannot quantify how much of an impact man is having; attempts at measuring it lead to climate models, and climate models have only a slightly better track record than a bunch of stopped clocks at keeping time. Everyone knows that the earth has warmed and cooled since it existed. So everyone agrees that the world temperature changes constantly. But the alarmists can't quantify our impact with any accuracy, can't predict where it will go next with any certainty, but want everyone to drop everything to try to solve it. You see a problem that must be solved at all costs, they see a cult peddling politics and money in place of science, using clean water and air as a hook to reach the masses who all want those things too, but without wanting to join the cult.

dagss 8y ago
"Everyone knows that the earth has warmed and cooled since it existed" This is where things get wrong. Previously warming and cooling has happened over thousands of years. What we see now is something different. A couple hundred years is "instant" in this context. https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
bjourne 8y ago
Sorry that I modded you down, but where is the cite for the claim 10 foot sea rise by XXXX year?
_-david-_ 8y ago
The other issue is because of these theories there is push for new regulations and (carbon) taxes. This is going to cause people to be skeptical of the information.